Lefties are squawking up a storm about how badly Gillard's been treated. They're forever bleating about how she doesn't get the "respect the office deserves".
Well, that's got a lot to do with the fact that she herself has disrespected the office. She
didn't actually win the position honourably (you know, by being elected)
in the first place. She took the easy, dodgy route by slyly knifing the bloke who had won it fairly. And she's abused her position repeatedly from day one with her constant, shameless lying.
The sisterhood is particularly put out by the sexist abuse of Gillard. And yes, there's been a lot of hatred towards her -- some of which is misogynous.
But again, she's brought much of this on herself by zealously playing the gender card -- particularly in the last year or so. Her false accusations of sexism are in themselves sexist, since they're aimed almost exclusively at men. So she shouldn't be surprised when she does cop some anti-female snark coming back at her.
Lots of conservative women in politics get sexist abuse hurled at them (and quite often it's from the same people squealing about misogyny in relation to Gillard!) but they don't wallow in their victimhood. They just shrug it off and get on with the gig. That earns them respect.
Gillard, on the other hand, has courted this reaction, stoked it, and wallowed in it big time. It's gotten to the point where her victim status is now offered as the main reason we should vote for her! It's truly pathetic.
The other annoying claim from Gillard's sob sisters is that as well as all the public loathing, she's been unfairly treated by the media. What a crock that is! On the contrary, they've made a point of protecting her from criticism -- particularly about her dodgy past as a lawyer. The vast majority of Aussie journos avoided that as a subject for ages until finally they could remain in denial no longer.
And ultimately two of them lost their jobs for investigating that, remember. Add Howard Sattler to this list of professional road kill, albeit for simply being a meathead, and the body count stands at three. Now, I know of no reporter who was actually sacked because of his treatment of a sitting PM in the past. (If anyone does, please enlighten me.) Clearly, rather than being beaten up by meeja heavies, she's been consistently treated with kid gloves.
Then there's the treatment she gets from her own party. Would any male politician have lasted so long in the top job if he were so catastrophically unpopular? No way!
Gillard has been our worst PM by a country mile. She's also our most mollycoddled. Roll on September 14 when we finally get to put an end to the whole nauseating bloody farce that this malignant mediocrity has inflicted upon us.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Friday, June 14, 2013
Gillard prefers role of Prime Victim to Prime Minister
Julia Gillard's self obsession knows no bounds. Rather than attempting to effectively deal with serious issues affecting the nation she's turned her prime ministership into a grotesque and sanctimonious soapie that revolves entirely around her hurt feelings. The way she's twisted her unpopularity into a po-faced diatribe about the evils of sexism is shameless and cynical in the extreme.
Sure, most Aussies don't like her one bit. But that's got nothing to do with her being a woman. It's because she's incompetent, nasty, duplicitous, and a world class hypocrite to boot. The fact that she has the gall to then hide behind her gender just annoys people even more.
Now, brazenly milking Howard Sattler's oafish interview (for which he lost his job, BTW) for her own political advantage, she's wringing her hands about its ramifications for the next generation of female leaders.
Speaking today, Ms Gillard refused to take questions on the controversy, but echoed comments from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick that the treatment of high-profile women could send a damaging message to the next generation.
"I'm concerned about that, too. I don't want to see a message like that sent to those young girls," she said.
"I want young girls and women to be able to feel like they can be included in public life and not have to face questioning like the questioning I faced yesterday."
The sanctimony is breathtaking. Apart from anything else, the one with the greatest right to be angered by Sattler's line of questioning is actually her significant other. But she's cast herself as the biggest victim. Cry me a river, Toots!
And like pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth, she doesn't mean one word of it. Gillard doesn't give a tinker's cuss about Australian girls. She's just cynically exploiting the Perth broadcaster's faux pas to bolster her preferred narrative.
The Women for Gillard launch, along with the menu-gate stitch up, and possibly even that army sexism scandal that surfaced so conveniently, have all been aimed at building up a clear image of her as the brave, virtuous victim of eeevil male oppressors. Her clear hope is that it might get her over the line on September 14. But it has a more immediate goal too: to make sure that any internal move to topple her will be seen primarily in terms of gender politics.
If Rudd, Shorten or another bloke sticks his hand up for the gig Gillard knows that her armies of victim feminist harpies in the mainstream and social media will characterize her attempted ousting as the patriarchy's revenge. They'll all do their darnedest to cast her as a latter day Joan of Arc.
Knowing that Labor blokes like to see themselves as attitudinally reconstructed pro-feminist types (even though many are far more sexist than those in the Coalition) there's a good chance they'll balk at such a move.
But frankly I don't think it will work. Gillard is just so catastrophically toxic to the party's brand that even the Labor males' abundant moral vanity will not stop them from doing what clearly needs to be done. If some bloke in a blue tie doesn't tap her on the shoulder in the coming weeks (or even days) I'll be very surprised.
Sure, most Aussies don't like her one bit. But that's got nothing to do with her being a woman. It's because she's incompetent, nasty, duplicitous, and a world class hypocrite to boot. The fact that she has the gall to then hide behind her gender just annoys people even more.
Now, brazenly milking Howard Sattler's oafish interview (for which he lost his job, BTW) for her own political advantage, she's wringing her hands about its ramifications for the next generation of female leaders.
Speaking today, Ms Gillard refused to take questions on the controversy, but echoed comments from Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick that the treatment of high-profile women could send a damaging message to the next generation.
"I'm concerned about that, too. I don't want to see a message like that sent to those young girls," she said.
"I want young girls and women to be able to feel like they can be included in public life and not have to face questioning like the questioning I faced yesterday."
The sanctimony is breathtaking. Apart from anything else, the one with the greatest right to be angered by Sattler's line of questioning is actually her significant other. But she's cast herself as the biggest victim. Cry me a river, Toots!
And like pretty much everything that comes out of her mouth, she doesn't mean one word of it. Gillard doesn't give a tinker's cuss about Australian girls. She's just cynically exploiting the Perth broadcaster's faux pas to bolster her preferred narrative.
The Women for Gillard launch, along with the menu-gate stitch up, and possibly even that army sexism scandal that surfaced so conveniently, have all been aimed at building up a clear image of her as the brave, virtuous victim of eeevil male oppressors. Her clear hope is that it might get her over the line on September 14. But it has a more immediate goal too: to make sure that any internal move to topple her will be seen primarily in terms of gender politics.
If Rudd, Shorten or another bloke sticks his hand up for the gig Gillard knows that her armies of victim feminist harpies in the mainstream and social media will characterize her attempted ousting as the patriarchy's revenge. They'll all do their darnedest to cast her as a latter day Joan of Arc.
Knowing that Labor blokes like to see themselves as attitudinally reconstructed pro-feminist types (even though many are far more sexist than those in the Coalition) there's a good chance they'll balk at such a move.
But frankly I don't think it will work. Gillard is just so catastrophically toxic to the party's brand that even the Labor males' abundant moral vanity will not stop them from doing what clearly needs to be done. If some bloke in a blue tie doesn't tap her on the shoulder in the coming weeks (or even days) I'll be very surprised.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Gillard's gender war is poison for future Labor feminists
Like many, I'm just amazed at the cynicism and nastiness of Julia Gillard using abortion to slime the Libs. She brazenly lies that Abbott and his party will play politics with the issue. But that's exactly what she's doing! Considering what a complex and emotional issue it is, that is about as low as you can get.
And how hollow is her claim to be fighting for women when she is flouting her own party's affirmative action rules by supporting a man over women in the seat of Batman?
This behaviour is more confirmation of Gillard's deeply duplicitous character. To her, lying is as easy and natural as breathing. Clearly, she doesn't just take the voters for mugs -- she also has a very low opinion of the women who loyally support her. And I think the women in the electorate are awake to this. So it's likely that her gender war will ultimately alienate more women than it wins over.
And there'll be long term ramifications for this for Labor. After the party has been completely thrashed in the election there'll be a lot of stone-cold analysis of what went wrong. If party members aren't completely retarded they'll realize that Gillard's toxic gender politics had a lot to do with the loss. As a result, they'll resolve to keep anyone like Gillard from having too much influence in the future. So the odds of a left-wing woman leading the party again -- at least for many years -- will be zilch.
And that will be part of the PM's toxic legacy. Not only a disaster for the country, but also a disaster for left-wing feminism. (Not that I'm upset about this, mind. Frankly, I'm chuffed. But if you are a bit of a bolshie babe, then Julia Gillard really should be in your bad books.)
So if the sisters continue to worship her -- as I suspect they will -- it will just show how utterly lost the poor little poppets actually are. It really is very, very sad.
And how hollow is her claim to be fighting for women when she is flouting her own party's affirmative action rules by supporting a man over women in the seat of Batman?
This behaviour is more confirmation of Gillard's deeply duplicitous character. To her, lying is as easy and natural as breathing. Clearly, she doesn't just take the voters for mugs -- she also has a very low opinion of the women who loyally support her. And I think the women in the electorate are awake to this. So it's likely that her gender war will ultimately alienate more women than it wins over.
And there'll be long term ramifications for this for Labor. After the party has been completely thrashed in the election there'll be a lot of stone-cold analysis of what went wrong. If party members aren't completely retarded they'll realize that Gillard's toxic gender politics had a lot to do with the loss. As a result, they'll resolve to keep anyone like Gillard from having too much influence in the future. So the odds of a left-wing woman leading the party again -- at least for many years -- will be zilch.
And that will be part of the PM's toxic legacy. Not only a disaster for the country, but also a disaster for left-wing feminism. (Not that I'm upset about this, mind. Frankly, I'm chuffed. But if you are a bit of a bolshie babe, then Julia Gillard really should be in your bad books.)
So if the sisters continue to worship her -- as I suspect they will -- it will just show how utterly lost the poor little poppets actually are. It really is very, very sad.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Latham's "realm of evil" line about Rudd on Q and A
Last night on Q and A, former Labor leader Mark Latham characterized Kevin Rudd's white anting of Julia Gillard as being in "the realm of evil". Actually, it sounds like the title of a Hammer horror film. No doubt some mock movie posters will appear online, if they haven't already.
Cinematic potential aside, the memorable phrase is sure to be cited often as the election approaches. I suspect that the Libs might even use it if Rudd does actually wrest the top job back from the woman who knifed him (although right now that is looking unlikely).
Of course, the "realm of evil" line says more about Mark Latham than it does about Kevin Rudd. It reveals his histrionic level of hatred for the former PM. I think it also says something about the psychological make-up of people in the ALP. Frankly, I doubt a Liberal would use such, er, hyperbowl in describing the actions of a fellow conservative pollie. They're just not that emotionally intense.
But Labor is full of world class haters. Just as Rudd loathes Gillard, Latham loathes Rudd. And that's just the start of the Labor loathe-fest. Gawd, what a toxic environment it is!
There is such vicious personal enmity there, it makes you wonder what's going to happen come September 14 (or even earlier). The election itself will of course be a massacre. Then there will be all the bloody reprisals within the party. Canberra will be awash with rivers of blood ...
Which sounds like another Hammer title when you think about it!
Cinematic potential aside, the memorable phrase is sure to be cited often as the election approaches. I suspect that the Libs might even use it if Rudd does actually wrest the top job back from the woman who knifed him (although right now that is looking unlikely).
Of course, the "realm of evil" line says more about Mark Latham than it does about Kevin Rudd. It reveals his histrionic level of hatred for the former PM. I think it also says something about the psychological make-up of people in the ALP. Frankly, I doubt a Liberal would use such, er, hyperbowl in describing the actions of a fellow conservative pollie. They're just not that emotionally intense.
But Labor is full of world class haters. Just as Rudd loathes Gillard, Latham loathes Rudd. And that's just the start of the Labor loathe-fest. Gawd, what a toxic environment it is!
There is such vicious personal enmity there, it makes you wonder what's going to happen come September 14 (or even earlier). The election itself will of course be a massacre. Then there will be all the bloody reprisals within the party. Canberra will be awash with rivers of blood ...
Which sounds like another Hammer title when you think about it!
Friday, June 7, 2013
"You're having a lesbian" campaign from PFLAG
Something that has long fascinated me about the more zealous advocates of gay rights is how easily and often they ignore the realities of reproduction. They talk about gay male and lesbian parenting, for example, as if there was no one else involved in the child's creation. For myself and so many other flint-hearted conservatives this is both astonishing and annoying.
Let's face it, until cloning becomes old hat it's gonna take a man and a woman to make a baby. So, in the case of a "family" resulting from "marriage equality" there will always be a biological parent (father or mother) who more or less disappears from the child's life after she is born. Their absence is sure to affect the bub -- and not just because of societal conditioning due to "heteronormativism".
Fair enough if you're going to argue that these issues are negligible. But most of the time gay marriage advocates don't even acknowledge that they are there. They blithely brush them aside, totally ignoring the mechanics of human reproduction. And if you remind them of these cold hard facts they don't like it at all. They do a lot of eye rolling and derisive snorting. They'll often claim you're being heterosexist or homophobic, too. It's bloody infuriating.
That's why I find the latest campaign from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to be quite revealing. In it, a woman gives birth to bub, and the doc says: "Congratulations, you're having a lesbian." Next to her is her male partner -- clearly the father of the child.
So, if they're going to acknowledge the necessity of heterosexual sex in reproduction in their own political advertising, why are they so quick to dismiss it in debates with conservatives?
Let's face it, until cloning becomes old hat it's gonna take a man and a woman to make a baby. So, in the case of a "family" resulting from "marriage equality" there will always be a biological parent (father or mother) who more or less disappears from the child's life after she is born. Their absence is sure to affect the bub -- and not just because of societal conditioning due to "heteronormativism".
Fair enough if you're going to argue that these issues are negligible. But most of the time gay marriage advocates don't even acknowledge that they are there. They blithely brush them aside, totally ignoring the mechanics of human reproduction. And if you remind them of these cold hard facts they don't like it at all. They do a lot of eye rolling and derisive snorting. They'll often claim you're being heterosexist or homophobic, too. It's bloody infuriating.
That's why I find the latest campaign from Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to be quite revealing. In it, a woman gives birth to bub, and the doc says: "Congratulations, you're having a lesbian." Next to her is her male partner -- clearly the father of the child.
So, if they're going to acknowledge the necessity of heterosexual sex in reproduction in their own political advertising, why are they so quick to dismiss it in debates with conservatives?
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Adam Goodes and the PC emotionalism of the AFL
I'm just looking slack-jawed at this whole Adam Goodes farce. It surely is life imitating satire and vividly illustrates the sheer idiocy of the politically correct culture gripping the AFL. This purported desire to "stamp out racism" has resulted in many people completely losing their judgement and acting hysterically. The absurdity of it is simultaneously hilarious and deeply disturbing.
I've long believed that a key characteristics of the cultural Left is that they treat adults like children and vice versa. This has certainly been the case here. A thirteen year old girl has been threatened with arrest, interrogated alone for a couple of hours, publicly identified, and branded a racist in the mass media because she was heard to yell just one word (and from deep within a crowd of numerous adults also shouting abusive epithets!). On the other hand practically the entire country has been treading on egg shells so as not to upset the delicate feelings of a highly paid, much-lauded adult male footballer.
While Adam Goodes certainly has good reason to be a tad shat off about what has been said about him by both the young girl and now Eddie McGuire, both of them have apologized like crazy and the immense outpouring of support and empathy he's received from all levels of Australian society has surely been more than sufficient to assuage the hurt caused by their rudeness and stupidity. It's high time for him to just bloody well grow up and stop wallowing in his sense of victimhood.
Then there are the posturing pinko pinheads in the meeja and the halls of quackademe. These emotional exhibitionists are all weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth about the desperate hurt felt by the high profile indigenous footballer. But where's their concern for the plight of Aborigines (kids in particular) in remote communities who have such violent and wretched lives? Most of the whitey-tighty hipsters squawking about how sincerely they empathize with what a poor, oppressed Brownlow Medallist is going through couldn't give a rat's about what happens to these genuine victims of racism. Hell, with their puerile Rousseauvian BS the privileged parasites enthusiastically promote racist policies that make their dire situation even worse.
Ugh! Their sanctimonious hypocrisy just makes you wanna puke doesn't it?
Really, we've got to stop this obsession with people's feelings that the Left encourages so much. By definition they're deeply irrational, and vary wildly according to individuals. If recommended societal codes of behaviour are predicated entirely on what some pampered, egocentric emotional infant feels about how he's been treated then consistency will be rendered completely impossible and nothing will ever be good enough. The silly sporting sookarama of the last few days will become a running state right through society, with sanity and fairness a distant memory.
Thanks to the sinister, divisive culture promoted by Andrew Demetriou and his conga line of suckholes in the meeja the AFL has gone howling-at-the-moon mad. The joint's a bloody asylum until this buffoon buggers off and finds another organization to wreck, that's for sure. Thankfully, Aussie Rules is just a bloody game. But we should take heed of what's happened here and not let this disease spread any further, that's for sure.
I've long believed that a key characteristics of the cultural Left is that they treat adults like children and vice versa. This has certainly been the case here. A thirteen year old girl has been threatened with arrest, interrogated alone for a couple of hours, publicly identified, and branded a racist in the mass media because she was heard to yell just one word (and from deep within a crowd of numerous adults also shouting abusive epithets!). On the other hand practically the entire country has been treading on egg shells so as not to upset the delicate feelings of a highly paid, much-lauded adult male footballer.
While Adam Goodes certainly has good reason to be a tad shat off about what has been said about him by both the young girl and now Eddie McGuire, both of them have apologized like crazy and the immense outpouring of support and empathy he's received from all levels of Australian society has surely been more than sufficient to assuage the hurt caused by their rudeness and stupidity. It's high time for him to just bloody well grow up and stop wallowing in his sense of victimhood.
Then there are the posturing pinko pinheads in the meeja and the halls of quackademe. These emotional exhibitionists are all weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth about the desperate hurt felt by the high profile indigenous footballer. But where's their concern for the plight of Aborigines (kids in particular) in remote communities who have such violent and wretched lives? Most of the whitey-tighty hipsters squawking about how sincerely they empathize with what a poor, oppressed Brownlow Medallist is going through couldn't give a rat's about what happens to these genuine victims of racism. Hell, with their puerile Rousseauvian BS the privileged parasites enthusiastically promote racist policies that make their dire situation even worse.
Ugh! Their sanctimonious hypocrisy just makes you wanna puke doesn't it?
Really, we've got to stop this obsession with people's feelings that the Left encourages so much. By definition they're deeply irrational, and vary wildly according to individuals. If recommended societal codes of behaviour are predicated entirely on what some pampered, egocentric emotional infant feels about how he's been treated then consistency will be rendered completely impossible and nothing will ever be good enough. The silly sporting sookarama of the last few days will become a running state right through society, with sanity and fairness a distant memory.
Thanks to the sinister, divisive culture promoted by Andrew Demetriou and his conga line of suckholes in the meeja the AFL has gone howling-at-the-moon mad. The joint's a bloody asylum until this buffoon buggers off and finds another organization to wreck, that's for sure. Thankfully, Aussie Rules is just a bloody game. But we should take heed of what's happened here and not let this disease spread any further, that's for sure.
Thanks for reading, and if you've enjoyed this piece, please consider supporting me via Ko-fi.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Thoughts on the Adam Goodes racism furore
Assorted hand-wringers and finger-waggers are having a field day with this case of a thirteen year old girl calling Adam Goodes an ape. But rather than revealing how much racism still pervades society, the episode illustrates how desperate PC types are to puff themselves up with lefteous indignation over things that are basically pretty small beer.
It wasn't like there was a pack of adults hurling explicitly racist epithets at him. You still see that kind of stuff happening in European soccer matches and it's deeply disturbing. But this local furore revolves around one word yelled out by a thirteen year old girl.
People should just take a deep breath, calm down and try to put things in perspective. That line from the schoolyard about stick and stones versus words is worth remembering here.
Kids can be cruel. But they really don't know what they're doing. Goodes himself said as much in his press conference:
She's 13, she's still so innocent, I don't put any blame on her. Unfortunately it's what she hears, the environment she's grown up in that has made her think it's ok to call people names. I can guarantee you right now she would have no idea, you know, how it makes anyone feel by calling them an ape.
Exactly. So why take so much offence?
And then there's the question of what was actually motivating her to utter the insult. Has she called white players apes as well? If so, then how can you be absolutely sure that she was being racist when yelling this term at Goodes in particular? (That said, it seems likely that racism was a factor in this case. But it certainly wasn't clear cut in the way it would have been if she'd used one of those notorious racist insults starting with "n" or "b".)
This politically correct rule that says that terms like ape, monkey and chimp are only racist if hurled at non-whites seems pretty suss to me. (Dubya Bush was often called a chimp, remember. But no one ever said that insult was racist.) Frankly, this double standard seems borderline racist in itself. In it, offence takers insist on racial specificity as much as or more than the offence givers. In this latest footy furore they are the ones most clearly and repeatedly linking simean characteristics with Aboriginality, after all.
This whole story revolves mostly around Goodes's interpretation of what the girl yelled out. You can certainly understand why he was hurt. But there are lots of people with similar backgrounds to Goodes who have met with similar abuse yet simply shrugged it off.
I blame the cult of victimhood built up by the (mostly white) squitterati. They cast indigenous people as victims as often as possible and are overjoyed when they see them publicly expressing their hurt. Makes them feel virtuous, justifies their fat salaries and sells papers, among other things.
My advice to Goodes: Don't play into their hands by being a victim. And I respectfully suggest that if you're cut to the quick because of what some little girl says then you should probably toughen up a tad.
Media hand-wringers purport to be on this noble mission to "stamp out racism". But of course they will never achieve this goal. Sadly, there will always be racism in society. And of course kids will continue to be thoughtless and rude.
A racism free utopia is the last thing they want anyway. If they don't have an excuse to prance around proclaiming their moral superiority and cultural sensitivity they simply won't know what to do with themselves.
What will happen is that their desire to be offended and outraged will become ever more ridiculous and extreme. Eventually it will get to the stage where a baby in a pram throwing a rattle at an indigenous player will be deemed "racist" and provoke a humungous media dummy spit!
It wasn't like there was a pack of adults hurling explicitly racist epithets at him. You still see that kind of stuff happening in European soccer matches and it's deeply disturbing. But this local furore revolves around one word yelled out by a thirteen year old girl.
People should just take a deep breath, calm down and try to put things in perspective. That line from the schoolyard about stick and stones versus words is worth remembering here.
Kids can be cruel. But they really don't know what they're doing. Goodes himself said as much in his press conference:
She's 13, she's still so innocent, I don't put any blame on her. Unfortunately it's what she hears, the environment she's grown up in that has made her think it's ok to call people names. I can guarantee you right now she would have no idea, you know, how it makes anyone feel by calling them an ape.
Exactly. So why take so much offence?
And then there's the question of what was actually motivating her to utter the insult. Has she called white players apes as well? If so, then how can you be absolutely sure that she was being racist when yelling this term at Goodes in particular? (That said, it seems likely that racism was a factor in this case. But it certainly wasn't clear cut in the way it would have been if she'd used one of those notorious racist insults starting with "n" or "b".)
This politically correct rule that says that terms like ape, monkey and chimp are only racist if hurled at non-whites seems pretty suss to me. (Dubya Bush was often called a chimp, remember. But no one ever said that insult was racist.) Frankly, this double standard seems borderline racist in itself. In it, offence takers insist on racial specificity as much as or more than the offence givers. In this latest footy furore they are the ones most clearly and repeatedly linking simean characteristics with Aboriginality, after all.
This whole story revolves mostly around Goodes's interpretation of what the girl yelled out. You can certainly understand why he was hurt. But there are lots of people with similar backgrounds to Goodes who have met with similar abuse yet simply shrugged it off.
I blame the cult of victimhood built up by the (mostly white) squitterati. They cast indigenous people as victims as often as possible and are overjoyed when they see them publicly expressing their hurt. Makes them feel virtuous, justifies their fat salaries and sells papers, among other things.
My advice to Goodes: Don't play into their hands by being a victim. And I respectfully suggest that if you're cut to the quick because of what some little girl says then you should probably toughen up a tad.
Media hand-wringers purport to be on this noble mission to "stamp out racism". But of course they will never achieve this goal. Sadly, there will always be racism in society. And of course kids will continue to be thoughtless and rude.
A racism free utopia is the last thing they want anyway. If they don't have an excuse to prance around proclaiming their moral superiority and cultural sensitivity they simply won't know what to do with themselves.
What will happen is that their desire to be offended and outraged will become ever more ridiculous and extreme. Eventually it will get to the stage where a baby in a pram throwing a rattle at an indigenous player will be deemed "racist" and provoke a humungous media dummy spit!
Thanks for reading, and if you've enjoyed this piece, please consider supporting me via Ko-fi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)